Israel Encouraged Egypt’s Junta to Smash Islamists

The NY Times reveals that among the parties urging Egypt’s military leaders to stand fast against both the Muslim Brotherhood and western interlocutors attempting to negotiate a way out of the impasse in Cairo, were Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both have a common interest: they hate Islamists and see them as among the greatest threats to their regimes. That’s why both lobbied Pres. Obama hard not to end the U.S.’ $1.3 billion in military aid to Egypt or to take further harsh action in response to the massacres that have left at least 1,000 dead in the past week and thousands more injured.

My Israeli source tells me that the phones lines between Jerusalem and Cairo were humming:

The Israelis, whose military had close ties to General Sisi from his former post as head of military intelligence, were supporting the takeover as well. Western diplomats say that General Sisi and his circle appeared to be in heavy communication with Israeli colleagues, and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.

Israeli officials deny having reassured Egypt about the aid, but acknowledge having lobbied Washington to protect it.

Contacts with the Egyptian junta leaders was likely conducted by Amos Gilad, one of Bibi Netanyahu’s trusted national security advisors and a former IDF intelligence officer. Though I don’t know what Gilad told them, it’s likely he told them to hang tough; to rid Egypt once and for all of the Islamist threat. After all, that’s the theme song of all Israeli military interventions in places like Lebanon or Gaza: we need to invade these places to rid them of the threat of radical Islam with its permanent holy war against Jews and western values. It’s heady advice to hear from Israelis who, after all, are known for twisting U.S. presidents around their little fingers. One couldn’t fault el-Sisi if he was persuaded that he could work the mojo with Washington as well.

The Israelis told the Egyptians not to worry about western blandishments or threats. They said that westerners don’t understand this region. They don’t live here. They don’t understand these wild-eyed terrorists ready to die for their religion. When all is said and done, the westerners always cave because they need us more than we need them. That’s likely the siren song sung by Israelis to their Egyptian counterparts.

Patrick Smith, writing in Salon, raised some even more troubling questions on this subject:

More pressing has been Israel’s intolerance of an Islamic party — Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood — in power next door. It is apparent, if not quite evident, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted Morsi’s head before he agreed to any talks with the Palestinians. He assented to new talks within days of the Egyptian coup, it is worth noting. The dreaded question here is whether U.S. support for Israel effectively precludes political advances in the Arab world. One fears the answer, but it is vital now to pose the problem.

But it wasn’t only Israelis who were doing the singing: Aipac, which usually sticks to its single-issue focus on Israel, weighed in as well:

When Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, proposed an amendment halting military aid to Egypt, the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee sent a letter to senators on July 31 opposing it, saying it “could increase instability in Egypt and undermine important U.S. interests and negatively impact our Israeli ally.” Statements from influential lawmakers echoed the letter, and the Senate defeated the measure, 86 to 13, later that day.

Supporting the dictators will add to instability in Egypt. But Aipac doesn’t care about Egypt. The generals could mow down ten or hundred thousand and the Israel lobby wouldn’t even blink. But Aipac believes Israel needs a bulwark against the scourge of Islamism. The Brotherhood, as far as Israel is concerned, is the unknown. What Israel never likes is the unknown. It prefers a status quo in which its citizens remain prey to ongoing hostilities and violence, over an unknown set of territorial compromises and the ongoing waves of Arab populism represented by the Arab Spring.

Israel has thrown in with the worst and most brutal of the Arab world: the generals, the fat cat Saudi sheikhs, and autocratic kings. The Old Guard which maintains its hold on power through brutality, violence, and corruption. Unfortunately, this allows the world to say that Israel itself and its values are those of the corrupt strongmen it supports.

Just how out of touch Israel is with the morals of the rest of the world you can see in this NY Times piece by Jodi Rudoren:

Israel plans this week to intensify its diplomatic campaign urging Europe and the United States to support the military-backed government in Egypt despite its deadly crackdown on Islamist protesters, according to a senior Israeli official involved in the effort.

There is absolutely no shame or self-consciousness in such statements by Israel. It does not care that it’s backing murderous thugs. They’re “our” murderous thugs, as the old saying goes, and we back them to the hilt. Because the only thing that matters is protecting the Israeli status quo, even if that status quo continues getting Israelis regularly killed. Status quo uber alles.

Rudoren continues:

…Leaders here will press the case with diplomats from abroad that the military is the only hope to prevent further chaos in Cairo.

…The message, in part, is that concerns about democracy and human rights should take a back seat to stability and security because of Egypt’s size and strategic importance.

“We’re trying to talk to key actors, key countries, and share our view that you may not like what you see, but what’s the alternative?” the official explained. “If you insist on big principles, then you will miss the essential — the essential being putting Egypt back on track at whatever cost. First, save what you can, and then deal with democracy and freedom and so on.

“At this point,” the official added, “it’s army or anarchy.”

“Preventing further chaos? ” What in God’s name do they think’s going on now in Egypt? A tea party? But of course what they really mean by “chaos” is an Islamist government that turns Hamas loose against Israel and becomes a bastion of Al Qaeda-style religious extremism. Such a thing didn’t happen in the year Morsi was in power. No matter how badly he governed he understood there were limits to what he could do (even if he wanted to do them, which is an open question). Israel’s problem is that it projects the worst possible scenario when the worst is never what will happen. But in trying to persuade the world that the worst will happen, it becomes almost a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what the Egyptian junta, with Israel’s solid backing, has done is to double down on their own form of State terror. You kill 1,000 people to “restore order,” which makes it impossible to restore order. So then you have to go farther. You have to kill another 1,000. You have to take control of all the levers of the state. You have to become a police state. But what happens when even that doesn’t help because the people, not just Islamists like the Brotherhood, rebel?

In short, this is an awful, cynical bet that Israel has encouraged the generals to make. They assume that the world, when it sees and understands the full horror of the Islamist “terrorists,” will permit them to do what the Algerian military did to its Islamists in 1992. But frankly, the world’s a different place 30 years later, and Egypt and Algeria are different cases. It just won’t work. But you can’t fault Israel and the generals for trying…

As I wrote above, an Israeli government that says only an army prevents Egypt from falling into chaos, and that tells the world that democracy must take a back seat to restoring order (at all costs), is a government that has given up on these values for itself as well. Democracy is not a luxury. Not something you earn by first killing 10,000 bad guys to get there. Democracy is an absolute principle. One that can’t be compromised. There is no other first principle. Order is no first principle. Order is the byword of fascism (“ordnung muss sein“). Not of liberal western democracies. Order flows from democracy, not the other way around.

While there is no way I can say that I support Islamism in its extreme forms, I have even less regard for men who rule by the barrel of a gun. If a government fails and needs to be replaced, as many Egyptians believed of the Morsi regime, then it must be brought down by a popular uprising if there are no institutional political means to do so (such as impeachment). Those who believed that the army was a shortcut to democracy were sorely mistaken. Armies almost without exception don’t lead to democracy. They lead to men with medal bedecked chests and sunglasses giving the orders and everything’s for their taking.

Where does that leave us? The U.S.? We have thrown in our lot with the generals. We’re not comfortable about it. Obama, is after all, a liberal. He doesn’t like the guys with epaulets running countries. It offends those democratic values he declaims about so eloquently in his speeches. But there are priorities and pragmatic interests that must be acknowledged. As the Times so cynically and inaptly puts it:

The violent crackdown has left Mr. Obama in a no-win position: risk a partnership that has been the bedrock of Middle East peace for 35 years, or stand by while longtime allies try to hold on to power by mowing down opponents.

That partnership may, at one time, have been the bedrock of Middle East peace, but when was the last time it was? 1979? What did Mubarak ever do for Middle East peace other than be an obedient lackey? What has el-Sisi done besides killing and wounding civilians in their thousands. There are even observers who suggest that the military is preparing to do to the Muslim Brotherhood what the Algerian military did: eradicate them. Even if this projection is wrong, and I wouldn’t bet money that it is, how can this ruling junta ever be a force for peace or anything constructive after the events of the past week?

We are betting on the wrong horse. We’re betting on the forces of the past over the forces of the future. We’d rather be on the side of the strong (for now) than on the side of the right.

Why? Because we have a war to fight against Islamists in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq. Maybe even Iran. We have allies to protect in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan and Israel. How are we to ship our troops and their weapons if we don’t have ready access to the Suez Canal? What happens if one day a general like Nasser comes along and says: sorry Uncle Sam, closed for business?

But what if this calculated gamble of the military putchists fails? What if they play all their cards and it’s not enough? What if they can’t create order out of the chaos they’ve unleashed on the country? What if Sinai turns into an Islamist version of the Wild West with Bedouin tribesmen armed to the teeth, attacking Egyptian security forces and Israeli targets as well on a daily basis? What if security forces sent to quell their uprising are slowly torn to pieces in a war of attrition? What if the people turn sullen and unyielding in their resentment of the ongoing violence? What then? Who will our friends be then in Egypt?

Nasser threatened us five decades ago and we let Israel loose on him in 1967 to bring him down a peg or two. Do we really think it’s impossible that another Egyptian leader might arise seeking to emulate him? What then? Could we then blame an Egyptian nationalist who turned on us for our cozying up to the worst elements of Egypt’s ruling economic and military elites?

If we wish to retain even a shred of our vaunted reputation as upholder of democratic values, we must do much more than we have. We must cut off aid to the generals. We must impose military sanctions. If we can do this to the ayatollahs in Iran, why not the generals in Cairo? This sort of statement shows those who lead us remain clueless:

“The million-dollar question now,” said one American military officer, “is where is the threshold of violence for cutting ties?”

That’s not a million-dollar question. That’s a ten-cent question and the answer is evident: we passed the threshold long ago.

One rule for an uprising in Damascus; another for an uprising in Cairo.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 18, 2013 4:08 AM

Damien Flinter

Indeed..envisage the headlines if it were Teheran rather than Cairo.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 19, 2013 2:39 AM

Damien Flinter

The only thing I’d add, Richard, is that Israel’s hat was always in the ring with the most brutal of the despots…it was created by Britannia and the extension of European antisemitic ethnic cleansing policies.
Instead of Madagascar, it was realised by the WASP Nato empire that the Jews, via Zionist fantasies, could be installed as a garrison on the vital oil jugular that is Suez.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 18, 2013 4:12 AM

Eli

@Damien Flinter:

Many thanks for your warm compliments and nice explanation and addition.

Is your information, that we the Israelis only a garrison on Suez, a fairy tale or do you have any real proof for it? When I say proof, please, don’t tell me that Mr. XXYY wrote a book about it, proof means proof.

@Eli: While I agree with your view of Damien’s overstatement, I reject your invitation that he or you delve into a deep discussion of the history of Zionism, the Mandate, Britain’s role in the creation of Israel, etc. Stay on topic and encourage others to do so as well.

the Jews, via Zionist fantasies, could be installed as a garrison on the vital oil jugular that is Suez.

Your comment contained a few parts truth and many parts overstatement. It’s far more credible when you stick to facts & don’t try to overdramatize (as the above quotation indicates).

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 18, 2013 1:42 PM

Damien Flinter

Not sure where you see the overstatement, Richard.
Israel was a project devised by Hertzl as a reaction to European antisemitism. Most Jews greeted it with derision as a pipedream/fantasy(and many still think it a perversion). It was a minor issue until post-war Britain and the US blocked refugee access and diverted the survivors of Naziism to Palestine. Irgun and the Stern Gang took it from there.
Western industries(and their military enforcers) were transferring from coal to oil, and its moguls realised the strategic importance of the region(as did their wealthy bankers).
Suez was, and remains, one of the most vital trade(and thus military)conduits on the planet, even with the arctic routes opening due to ice retreat. Even before the canal it was a vital overland transfer trade jugular.
The ’56 Suez adventure was reined in by Washington for what it was…but Aipac ensures that won’t happen again.
Kindly elaborate as to where I overstate or misread.
I have not stated that the garrison was the sole motive(as Eli implies). I am aware of the complexities; but am unconvinced that I overstate.
There are combined Nato excercises taking place currrently in the Gulf, and Mediterranean fleets do not relish the Cape route in an ’emergency’. A second blockage will not be allowed…particularly in our increasingly fraught times.
Hence the military in Egypt (garrison?)needed reinstating.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 19, 2013 2:36 AM

Bob Mann

I think this might be considered off-topic.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 19, 2013 5:44 PM

Davey

Flinter’s comments are not true or false, they are a metaphoric rehash of history. This is probably off-topic and I understand Richard’s apprehension about getting into a pissing contest on history when it’s irrelevant to this post, sort of.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 19, 2013 6:42 PM

Damien Flinter

I think your editorial foray is off topic.
As is Davey’s(below) ad hominem.
My facts stand, and if Davey wants a ‘pissing contest’ let him provide his historiographical credentials.
The day history is ‘irrelevant’ to this topic is the day hasbara, spin and propaganda finally supplants any attempt at objective analys leading to progress out of the current(more than metaphorical)bloody and expanding tailspin.
I suggest, Davey, you correct my historical facts if you can, and leave the style to the intelligence and taste of readers to judge for themselves.
Sort of.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 20, 2013 1:13 AM

Davey

Oh,…angry, angry. I intended no ad hominim — please point it out. The phrase “pissing contest” is often used to signal a known or anticipated series of arguments and that is what was intended. I don’t find that your history remarks, including the colorful metaphor for what has transpired, essentially wrong-headed at all. History is hardly irrelevant in general, and I sympathize of this, but I understand the hesitation here to rehash the ground simply because it is dressed in new imagery.

As to “facts” — which ones are you asserting? The US and GB did block immigration, but it was at the behest of Zionists, it likely did not reflect policy overall or an unwillingness to take substantial numbers. The realization of the “strategic importance” of the region might not necessarily have led to “garrisoning” the region, but rather to an accommodation with Arab aspirations and non-support of the Zionist state. Many argue this point. You see, what you call “facts,” are interpretations.

And this is precisely the “pissing contest” which Richard, I think, wished to sideline. Sort of.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 20, 2013 1:22 PM

Damien Flinter

Sorry if I angered, Davey..I thought your ‘rehash’ was a dismissal.
I think yoiu underestimate the deep dyed antisemitism in both the UK and US..I’ve lived in both…and it was a major factor in blocking the refufees from entry..not least from established Jews.
The illusion of Jewish monocultural unity is also a Zionist fantasy, like all uber exclusivist and exceptionalising nationalisms.
No offence intended. My ‘facts’ are founded.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 21, 2013 1:36 AM

Burak

An extremely interesting piece was published this morning by Yossi Beilin in IsraelHayom (page 9)
In it Beilin states that one of his Egyptian sources told him that the last elections were actually won by Ahmad Shafik and not Muhhamad Morsi, but the military forged the results in fear of the MB reaction.

The fight between the Muslim Brotherhood and Secular Egyptian is nothing new.

1: King Farouk banned the Muslim Brotherhood after the assassination of the Egyptian prime-minster Mahmud Fahmi Nokrashi on December 28, 1948. Hassan al-Banna himself was killed by government agents in Cairo in February 1949.

2: When Nassar came into power the ban against the MB was removed. A MB member Abdul Munim Abdul Rauf tried to kill Nassar on October 26,1954 and as a result the Brotherhood was outlawed again and Sayyid Qutb was imprisoned.

3: in 1964 Nassar legalized the Brotherhood and released all prisoners

4. in 1966 after failed attempts to assassinate Nassar, the Muslim Brotherhood leadership was executed and the organization banned again.

5. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Saddat.

This is not a political party in the western terms, this is a group that will use whatever it can to raise to power including assassination of political figures. Due to the long bloody history between the MB and the Secular officers i seriously doubt Sisi needed anyone’s advice weather Saudi or Israeli. He gave them a chance serving under Morsi for a year denying requests of his fellow officers to act before (per Yossi Beillin) and when nothing changed and things worsened acted.

As for the US contacts with Egypt.
The us will not sever it’s relations with the Egyptian regime because of American Interest. the US wan’t priority in crossing the Egyptian airspace and the Suez Canal, specially considering the growing chances with hostilities braking with Iran, and the growing terror threat in Sinai and Yemen. And it’s US interest that the the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt will be maintained and the military aid to Egypt is part of the contract. Also one should consider the the Egyptian army can use the said 1.3 Biliion Dollars only in the US purchasing US made products. With the economy the way it is last thing Obama wants is to hurt US companies.

With respect to the famous influence of the Jewish Lobby in the US. This Lobby is unsuccessful, and had been for years in releasing Johnathan Pollard, which shows you that despite the urban legend about the influence of the said Lobby reality is totally different. The notion about the ultimate unlimited powers of the Jewish Lobby is border line antisemitic.

@Burak: The last historical evidence you offered to buttress your view of the MB was from 35 yrs ago. You offered nothing for the period from then till now. While there is no doubt that the MB is an Islamist party which combines political with religious/theological ideas, and hence is problematic to democrats like me (or you, I presume), the Brotherhood is entirely different entity than it was in 1982.

History proves with very few exceptions that when radical insurgent groups are permitted access to the system through elections they generally turn from revolutionary violence to responsible attempts at governance. It also proves that when extremist militarized regimes attempt to criminalize or eradicate such groups, it leads to absolute social chaos.

As for your claim that the MB will use “whatever it can to raise [sic] power…” This is an opinion unfounded in fact. It is a duplication of alarmist Israeli views of Islamist regimes everywhere including Iran, Lebanon, & Gaza. This sort of false perception of reality is what has led Israel into so many of its military [mis]adventures.

The us will not sever it’s relations with the Egyptian regime

I do so love it when Israelis with no special expertise in the field tell us what the U.S. electorate or U.S. presidents will or won’t do. They have far less knowledge than any average U.S> citizen by and large yet presume far superior knowledge. It’s impressive, but again is part of the Israeli delusion of omniscience & omnipotence in ME affairs. A severe mental delusion with potentially grave consequences.

the Egyptian army can use the said 1.3 Biliion Dollars only in the US purchasing US made products.

This is going to shock you but…$1.3-billion in military exports isn’t even a drop in the ocean of the U.S. economy. Stopping these purchases will hardly even impact the companies whose products will no longer be bought by Egypt.

This Lobby is unsuccessful, and had been for years in releasing Johnathan Pollard,

False. Interesting that you use the case of Pollard to measure the success of the Lobby. Also interesting that you join anti-Semites in calling it the “Jewish,” rather than Israel lobby. As for being “borderline anti-Semitic:” that would be YOU.

Using Pollard as a yardstick of success only confirms that you Israelis treat the lobby as an extension of your own foreign policy. That makes Aipac and all the others foreign agents who should be so designated under U.S. law. Further, Pollard is a traitor who did more damage to U.S. security interests than most other captured spies. His freedom would be a slap in the face to every U.S. official trying to protect those interests. It would be slap to the American people as well. That’s why the lobby has failed. Not because it isn’t generally successful at almost every other mission it undertakes.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 18, 2013 2:01 PM

Davey

Exactly. The mere fact that the “Jewish” Lobby undertakes such a project underscores its “ties” to a foreign government and seriously questions the loyalty of the Lobby agencies including, alas, AIPAC. This effort will not play well with Americans and should be exposed repeatedly. (Considering the consequences, it is a wonder that the Lobby would take on such a project at all. It suggests how flawed their vision really is.)

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 19, 2013 10:39 AM

Burak

@ Richard (Is this the custom on this website when approaching someone ?)
“the Brotherhood is entirely different entity than it was in 1982.”
in what way is the brotherhood different ?

“History proves with very few exceptions…..”
I am here to learn, could you list few of those organization’s that became moderate when burdened with governing responsibility ? If you would have listened to the Tamrod people before the current revolution started, then Morsi tried to implement a religious out of date agenda onto the Egyptian society which brought the current revolution.

“As for your claim that the MB will use “whatever it can to raise [sic] power…” This is an opinion unfounded in fact. ”
First what is [sic] ?. Second it is not unfounded in fact it is founded in the history. The history of the last 75 years. You think that the MB is a different organization, in what way ?

“This is going to shock you but…$1.3-billion in military exports isn’t even a drop in the ocean of the U.S. economy.”
Nonsense. 1.3 Billion dollar is 10% of the yearly sales of L3 communications (within the top 25 US companies, and there are only 5 companies earning more then L3. ) it’s more then a chunk of change and surely not something to underestimate. Cutting military Aid to Egypt will result in job loss in the US something president Obama and the Democrats can not allow to happen prior to the 2014 mid term elections.

“It would be slap to the American people as well. That’s why the lobby has failed. Not because it isn’t generally successful at almost every other mission it undertakes.”

No doubt that releasing Pollard would be a slap on american hands as you stated. But that’s my point exactly. Though from an Israeli perspective pollard should be released and it is a consensus within the Israeli society , from the american perspective he shouldn’t. If the Jewish lobby (and i refer to it as the Jewish lobby because AIPAC is all Jewish) was a blind folded servant of the Israeli government or if the lobby were to have the ultimate power as you attribute to it, AIPAC would have been successful in bringing Pollard’s release. I fear that neither his true. AIPAC is not a blind folded servant of the Israeli government interest nor it has ultimate powers. AIPAC did try to influence Pollards release.

@Burak: The Brotherhood actually had power for a year with an elected president. In its entire prior history, it never achieved this. It didn’t do a particularly good job while it was in power. But if you compare how it did to how Mubarak did, the MB only did worse because expectations were much higher for it. This is a substantial difference from the MB which was engaged in terror attacks & had its members executed or imprisoned after assassinating Sadat.

Some of the revolutionary groups which turned from violence to governing have been the ANC in S. Africa, Mau-Maus in Kenya, the Indonesian resistance to the Dutch, the IRA, the American revolutionists, and even Zionist right wing groups like Etzel and Lehi. There are many other such examples.

The MB will not use whatever it can to regain power. There are things it would never do in order to gain power. I doubt very much it would mow down 1,000 soldiers & police officers in order to regain power. Unlike you, I believe firmly that even such Islamist groups have principles & limits they place on their actions. It is the State unfortunately, with huge levels of force at its disposal which often uses unlimited force to gain its will.

Egypt doesn’t spend all that $1.3 billion with one U.S. defense contractor. It spreads the money out over multiple companies. Therefore, the spending as spread out among all these companies doesn’t amount to a huge cut in revenue. As for U.S. jobs, our economy is on the mend & as far as I’m concerned it will do us and the world good to try to figure out alternative exports to that military gear exported to Israel & Egypt. American ingenuity should allow us to figure this out.

As for Aipac, you are again wrong there. Aipac loves non-Jews especially evangelical Christians like John Hagee. In fact, the Israel lobby loves pro-Israel non-Jews more than Jews who don’t fall to the siren song of pro-Israelism. The Israel lobby is very beholden to non Jews for support. And that increases by the day as Jewish support falls. That’s only one reason not to call it the “Jewish lobby.” Another being that not all Jews agree with the Israel lobby or Aipac. Many Jews who do support Israel (critically) do not support the lobby. So to call it “Jewish” is wrong & plays into anti-Semitic tropes.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 18, 2013 6:00 PM

Burak

@ Richard
1st. I think that you are over simplifying the reasons for Morsi’s & MB failure. From what i read it seems that the main reason was their attempt to implement a stricter religious based system as the governing system in Egypt, which in turn stood against everything the previous revolution professed. That imho was the building block, on top of that you are right the expectations were a bit unreal, but i think that people feared the outcome mostly due to the Iranian example. Religious system means less freedom, at least the way religion is interpreted in that part of the world.

2nd I think that the way to measure if an organization has changed is by looking at his agenda, i do not think the MB agenda has changed over the years hence personally i see no change, what guided them before seems to be guiding them now, and youtube is packed with links showing guns and ammo that were found in MB supporters camps all over Cairo including the Mosque, inside coffins etc. President Obama’s facebook page was packed yesterday with links this is only one of them https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=owIS8IqiRek.

I have no idea what’s worse, killing 1000 people on the street or denying freedom from entire nation. Non seems like a good option to me but when i weigh 1000 people on one side and the freedom of an entire nation on the other, it’s a very tough call. Don’t get me wrong i object the killing of innocent people, in Israel, in Gaza and in Egypt regardless of who execute the killings may it be IDF, Fatah, Hamas or the Egyptian Army. From looking at the videos aired yesterday and the day before, i don’t think the Egyptian army planned to kill those people, it seems they encountered heavy resistance and live fire all over Egypt. Democracy in Egypt is fragile, there is no tradition of Democracy like in the US or even Israel, the measures used by both sides are out of the scope for both you and I, unfortunately not for them.

3rd The revolutionary groups you mentioned, was any of them religious ? I think a fair comparison in that sense is the Iranian regime, and i do not think it gotten any better after it gained power, on the contrary.

4th With respect to the Egyptian military aid budget, you’re right. What about other US interest in Egypt ? Suez Canal passage ? Air Space passage ?

5th AIPAC, i always though that AIPAC was an organization of Jews and other Organization though might be pro-israelis are not part of AIPAC, am i wrong ?

@Burak: The Brotherhood failed for many reasons but not because they were attempting to implement sharia. On the contrary, their failure came from a inabiilty to compromise with other elements in the policitial landscape, an inability to share power, attempts to write supreme presidential power into law, and a refusal to appoint non-MB politicians in any meaningful political posts.

The failure of your argument about the MB not “changing its agenda” may be seen by your refusing to offer any proof of your claim. As for YouTube videos, which you appear to believe will cement your claim, they don’t. You offer fraudulent claims by the army concerning MB violence, weapons, etc all of which have been disproven by credible media reports. I do not accept discredited claims as truth here. So do not bring discredited claims and attempt to offer them as true.

How in God’s name can you claim the MB “denied freedom to an entire nation.” That’s both lame and preposterous. They won an election and were Egypt’s rightful rulers. The way to remove them short of impeachment or parliamentary action (avenues that were precluded thanks to the perversion & frustration of democracratic interests by the Old Guard dominated judiciary) is through new elections.

Egyptians didn’t turn against the Brotherhood because it denied them freedom as you claim. But because the Brotherhood were incompetent rulers and instilled no confidence in the people that they could rule. That is a far different basis for unpopularity than what you claim.

As for whether the army intended to kill civilians or not–the plain fact supported by every serious international media outlet is that they not only intended to murder the Brotherhood protesters, but that they’d planned to do so for some time; and that they may indeed intend to totally eradicate the MB if they can get away with it.

I’m going to lay out some very clear rules for you: you may not offer your opinion on such issues unless you can support it with an independent credible source. So I don’t want to hear your opinion about what the army intended in similar comments from you. I’m not interested in hearing your opinion when it so flagrantly contradicts reality as supported by far more credible sources than you. I’m on the verge of moderating you, but will give you another chance before I do so. But the next time there will be no “next times.”

Democracy in Egypt isn’t ‘fragile’ as you claim. It is dead.

As for whether you’re “learning a lot” from my responses, I seriously doubt that. Your responses don’t show any growth in your perspective or moderation of your opinions. They’re still largely based on ignorance, faulty sources & prejudice. When am I doing to see some of this “learning” you claim you’re experienced??

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 20, 2013 10:17 PM

Interesting NYTimes article

The article you refer to is very interesting indeed.

That Israel has lobbied Washington NOT to stop the military aid is, in all honesty, exactly what anyone would expect, and that AIPAC marchs in lockstep with the Netanyahu government is, again, no big surprise.

Nothing to see here, folks, just move along, move along….

But this sentence is a real eye-opener ‘n’ no mistaking:
…”and the diplomats believed the Israelis were also undercutting the Western message by reassuring the Egyptians not to worry about American threats to cut off aid.”

Now that is a step waaaaaaaay beyond Israel lobbying the US government to adopt a certain policy, since it amounts to Israel actually stepping in and actively working against the US as it attempts to carry out a policy.

Joe Biden keeps arguing that “There must be no daylight – I repeat, no daylight – between the USA and Israel”

Well, heck Joe, here is a situation where there isn’t just “daylight” between you ‘n’ your supposed-ally.
This is a situation where your faux-ally has made the decision to take on the role of an enemy.

Perhaps you should do something about that before they make a habit of it….

Richard,
I appreciate your in depth posts, and your diligent reporting of sources, which take considerable time and effort, I am sure.
It’s not easy to know what is happening anywhere, once one realizes that standard news coverage is, often, not representative, of broader or differing realities on the ground, at any given time.
Thank you for your valuable posts, which also provide opportunities for interested parties to provide insights, and viewpoints.

In a previous column, you were very critical of the Egyptian military for supposedly cooperating with Israel, regarding the alleged drone strike in the Sinai. What exactly would you like them to do in support of the Palestinians? Cancel the peace agreement? Violate the force restrictions in the Sina and move what forces they have up to the Israeli borderi? Fully rearm and pose a dirct military threat against Israel? Withdraw their ambassador? Step up the media campaign against Israel? Completely open the border with Gaza? What would you advise a “true friend” of the Palestinians in a position of power in Egypt to do for them?

First, it’s ironic that you, an Israeli Jew, are asking me, an American Jew what I think Egypt’s generals should do in ruling their country. That’s a place I have no business going.

But in general terms, any Egyptian government must represent the interests of Egypt’s citizens. Not it generals or fat cats. Nor it’s western benefactors. Though there is much I’m critical of regarding Erdogan’s rule in Turkey, I think he’s walked a fine line regarding Israel. He’s shown his disapproval of Israel’s policies without fomenting war or violence. He’s expressed solidarity with Gaza, demanded compensation for the Mavi Marmara massacre. But his policies have been measured, while being critical.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 19, 2013 7:49 PM

bar_kochba132

In spite of doing a lot of talking, Erdogan has not actually accomplished anything regarding the Palestinians. There is no agreement on compensation regarding the Mavi Marmara, and I don’t believe there will be one, Israel’s policies with Gaza are not influenced by Turkey’s position and I don’t believe any of Israeli’s policies take into consideration Erdogan’s views and wishes. In any event, his position seems to have been weakened, although not mortally damaged by the mass protests against his rule. It is interesting that although in both Turkey and Egypt, the anti-Islamist forces are quite large, in Turkey maybe half the population, and in Egypt a majority, but in both cases, they are politically disunited and weak. In Egypt it was the army that stepped in, in Turkey the army has been neutralized.

Regarding the violence in Egypt, all the reports I have heard claim that a majority of the population supports what the army is doing, in spite of the mass violence. It doesn’t seem to have shocked the population, except for the MB supporters. This is a sign of a badly divided citizenry which has very bad impliciations for the future….a lack of wilingness to find national unity through compromise. Very ominous….looks something like Syria or Iraq, although Egypt doesnt have the sectarian and ethnic divisions those countries have.

@bar kochba: Your comment betrays a curious ignorance about how countries determine their foreign policy and what the schedule is for determining success. Turkey has many elements of its foreign policy. The Palestinians are but one of many. Erdogan realizes that he must pick and choose his battles and the timing of his initiatives. He has wisely used the Mavi Marmara massacre in order to promote awareness in the world both of Israel’s aggression & the illegality of the Gaza siege. In some ways it doesn’t matter whether Israel agrees to a settlement or not. If it agrees, it will have admitted wrongdoing & weakened its position. If it refuses it will continue to cast itself as a stubborn country unwilling to accept responsibility for its violations of international law (like murdering Turks in international waters). But unlike you, I believe there will be such an agreement. I remind you & readers of just how many of your “predictions” have proven wrong including that Obama would lose his first presidential election. You don’t have a terribly reliable record. Israel is deeply afraid of the role Turkey may play in further ostracizing it both in the region & on the world stage. If you think Israel doesn’t give a crap how one of the most powerful Muslim countries in the world conducts relations with it, you’re deluded. As to whether Erdogan has been weakened or not, again the quality of your analysis of world events is quite suspect. If Erdogan has been weakened it has been domestically. His foreign policy remains cogent and matters both in the region & world. Even if Erdogan is weakened or falls, the Turkish secular opposition does not have the power to replace him. He will likely be replaced by someone like Abdullah Gul, who is also an Islamist and whose policies toward Israel won’t be substantially different. Anti-Islamists are “half the population” is Turkey? What are you smoking? Some pretty powerful stuff. Erdogan’s party won a massive victory in virtually every election it contested since it came to power. The opposition is not unified. I can’t tell whether you’re merely ignorant or are trying deliberately to disseminate information that is false. If the latter, I do not permit lies to be published here. In fact, I challenge you to present any credible polling that substantiates this claim. If you offer none then I will expect you to admit this and retract this claim. If you do not, I may restrict your comment privileges. As for Egypt, I dare you to present any “report” that claims “a majority of the population supports what the army is doing.” How can anyone know this for a fact? Has there been an election to determine this question? A credible poll? No to both. So once again you’re spinning facts out of thin air. The most you can say is that some reporters in Egypt believe there is strong civilian support in some sectors for the coup. But that is a far cry from saying the majority supports it. As for whether the massacres have shocked the population or not–how would you know? Which journalist has said they haven’t? Again, the fact that reporters have interviewed a few government supports or even paid thugs who’ve defended the massacres doesn’t mean much & certainly not that the majority are not shocked by them as you imply. BTW, the lack of willingness to find compromise which you find so ominous was brought about solely by your friends in the army who were boosted by their Israeli, Saudi & Qatari friends into mounting… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 20, 2013 10:01 PM

Oui

“Qatari friends” is unlikely, perhaps you meant Emirati? Qatar and Turkey were strong supporters of Morsi and the Muslim Brothers.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 21, 2013 3:44 AM

Daniel

@ bar_kochba132 “It is interesting that although in both Turkey and Egypt, the anti-Islamist forces are quite large, in Turkey maybe half the population, and in Egypt a majority” This falsehood is wishful thinking, an obsession for Western and Occidentalist secularists, ranging from neoconservatives to twittering liberals, usually white, usually privileged, in addition to the original enemies of Islamism — Iranians who wanted the Shah, ultra-Kemalists in Turkey and wealthy elites in Egypt — who just cannot accept, who simply cannot get it into their heads, that enormous swathes of the population in these important countries, outside the cities, outside the cafés, outside the bourgeoisie, outside the Anglophonosphere, indeed the great majority of the people, either believe in or give their support to political Islam, and have for understandable reasons no faith left in any other political ideas, least of all Western-style, secular-liberal globalism, which they distrust and despise along with everything it stands for — understandably. At least informed Israelis tend to see the truth that moderate Islamism is currently the dominant paradigm among the common people in much, though not all, of the Arab world (although they instead make the equally unfounded assumption that all Islamists are evil barbarians). The fact that a military establishment has successfully suppressed Islamism for so long in Egypt and Turkey does not mean that it was never there, or that most people dislike it. In reality most people have just had no say in the affairs of these states for most of their modern history. Now they do, and they speak the language of Islamism. I am, as you can see, challenging your speculations in the strongest terms, and will maintain that position until you show either hard data, or even any kind of logical reasoning at all, that will support your claims, which as far as I can see you have not. “all the reports I have heard claim that a majority of the population supports what the army is doing, in spite of the mass violence.” What reports, exactly? Contrary to your suggestion, Esam al-Amin writing for CounterPunch on August 16 claims the following: “In fact, one month after the coup, the Egyptian public opinion has sharply turned against it. On August 6, the respectable Egyptian Center for Media Studies and Public Opinion published a poll showing that 69 percent of the Egyptian public rejects the military coup, while 25 percent supports it, with 6 percent refusing to give their opinion. Of those who reject it, only 19 percent identify themselves with the MB, 39 percent with other Islamist parties, while 35 percent are unaffiliated but feel that their votes were invalidated by the coup. Of those who support it, 55 percent in the poll consider themselves former Mubarak regime loyalists, while 17 percent identify themselves as Coptic Christians opposed to Islamists’ rule. Moreover, 91 percent of those who refused to give an answer belong to the pro-Saudi Salafist Al-Noor Party, which initially supported the coup before it pulled back and withdrew from Sisi’s roadmap.” http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/16/bloodbath-on-the-nile/ Furthermre, on July 11, only a week after the military coup, the Middle East Monitor published the following: “A report from the Egyptian Centre for Media Studies and Public Opinion has revealed that most people in Egypt are opposed to the removal of President Mohamed Morsi from office. Only 26 per cent support the coup, with 63 per cent against it; 11 per cent of respondents did not give an opinion. The questionnaire was based on a random sample of the Egyptian public. The Integration Egypt website said that the questionnaire’s credibility rate is… Read more »

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 21, 2013 2:05 AM

Oui

You forgot to add the disclaimer of Islamic Middle East Monitor:
“Dear readers, please note that the survey was conducted by the Egyptian Center for Media Studies and Public Opinion and NOT The Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research (Bassera).”

I checked out your link to poll [ecmeg.com] registered to someone with a name identical to an Egyptian journalist but no identity of an address. The site was created on May 5, 2013. Make your own judgement, IMO highly suspect.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 23, 2013 2:29 AM

Daniel

@ Oui: No, I didn’t “forget” to add their “disclaimer”. It’s there for anyone to see who, as you did, follows the link I provided.

I’ve cited two polls by ECMEG, which Esam al-Amin calls respectable, about a month apart, showing widespread disapproval of the coup.

You’ve cited one poll by Baseera, showing a lack of sympathy for the pro-Morsi demonstrations in Cairo in mid July.

Now, this Baseera was started in April 2012, and is still run, by a number of thoroughly Westernized, American-educated businessmen — including Ahmad Galal, the CURRENT FINANCE MINISTER OF THE JUNTA’S PSEUDO-GOVERNMENT. Several of the other founders, including the CEO, Magued Osman, signatory to the poll you quote, are Mubarak-era establishment figures, some with careers in the pre-Brotherhood caretaker government.

So yes, I’m sure everyone will make their own judgment, and from where I’m standing it doesn’t change anything.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 23, 2013 3:21 AM

Davey

If the MB lacked support, how did it win an election? It won because the “majority” of citizens did not support military rule. And now Egypt is right back to military dictatorship ala Mubarak, a situation friendly to Israel. What a surprise! One can simply infer that the US and Israel has had a hand in the coup. These “actors,” the West and Israel, have fractured political life throughout the region, a risky strategy.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 21, 2013 9:54 AM

Oui

Politics is about power, Erdogan plays that part very well building a relationship with Europe and the GCC states while serving natonal interests. Erdogan’s power stems from representing fat cats and we know how he serves Western benefactors (NATO/USA) and Turkish citizens. I think you underestimate him, connect the dots. Indication of Erdogan’s authoritarian rule by naming Istanbul’s third Bosphorus bridge after “Yavuz Sultan Selim.” I too favored Turkey’s prominence until recently after observing Erdogan’s role in Syria and the riots in Istanbul.

Now considered Qatar’s foreign policy blunder, billions of dollars used in bankrolling revolutions in Libya, Syria, and Egypt. [source Gulf News]

@Oui: You attempt to bring “facts” to bolster your argument which you think will shock or disturb me. Or the facts aren’t necessarily facts at all, but your opinion guised as fact. As far as I’m concerned Erdogan is a flawed ruler. But as far as foreign policy is concerned I think he’s been pitch-perfect including regarding Egypt. His denunciation of the coup was eloquent.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 20, 2013 4:53 PM

Fred Plester

I fear that focusing the world’s attention has encouraged Assad to go for broke.
The Daily Mail’s pictures of Sarin victims around Damascus look like it to me: far more conclusive Sarin symptoms than before.

Also, dead by the hundred rather than the dozen, which is nearer to what one would expect from a non-degraded Sarin strike.

I suspect that the previous incidents were intended to be this bad, but that the sarin in those munitions was chemically degraded by age.

Even so, what’s apparently happened is still not as bad as I’d expect a strike with full-strength Sarin to be.

I am afraid that it can get worse. Especially if someone has supplied enough sarin precursor chemicals for Assad to make the stuff fresh.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 21, 2013 9:05 AM

Daniel

@ Fred Plester: With all due respect, this seems quite off topic to me. Perhaps Mr. Silverstein will write about the alleged chem attack, so we should postpone our discussion until then; I will only remark that, if anyone asks me to believe that the Syrian government finally invited a team of 20 expert weapons inspectors to investigate the use of chemical weapons, on Sunday — and then carried out a major chemical attack in the vicinity on Wednesday — then they’re going to have to present hard proof to make that seem credible. As of the moment, no such proof exists; only videos from the opposition, which experts have looked at and are skeptical about. Haaretz reports extensively on such skepticism:

‘”Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.”‘

The story goes on for several paragraphs, as you’ll see, pointing out the unresolved questions of this matter.

American experts and media have got the message from the American government, that since the use of chemical weapons commits Obama to action, there ain’t no use of chemical weapons. Russia Today, of course, will blame the rebels every time.

They did wash down casualties with hoses before treating them (previous incidents they tried to give them oxygen first, which is getting things in the wrong order).

Sarin in skin contact can take up to eighteen hours before symptoms appear. I don’t think the doctors in the footage are clever liars or fraudsters, “brave” might be a better word. My own experience of Arab soldiers informs me that a high risk of dying in the attempt to help someone in peril, will not necessarily deter them. Land-based helicopters with no floats on at all, will be “hovered” with skids in the sea to rescue ship-wrecked fishermen, for example, leaving me to make the avionics work again afterwards.

Since the UN inspectors will not be allowed to visit the scene, their presence in Damascus is irrelevant.

If this is off topic, it’s for Richard to be rude to me, not you. I’ve never known him to hesitate when it was necessary.

Almost certainly, this happened when it did precisely because Egypt is the issue of the hour, and something else has happened in Syria which is suddenly displacing very, very large numbers of Syrians into Northern Iraq/Kurdistan.

It wasn’t initially clear who the refugees were, but they appear, based on interviews with the one BBC journalist to reach where they were, to be either pro-government or people with neutral views, chased out of the country by an Islamist militia.

Also, the official opposition spokesman said something about “ballistic rockets” being used, but those actually at the scene say it was rockets fired from helicopters, which makes much more sense. A new, very basic but not exactly homemade, helicopter-launched rocket has begun to appear and has been found with both explosive and some odd kinds of chemical filling.

Newspaper articles about “stocks” of Sarin are so much gas, because Sarin is not stable in storage and has a useful life measured in months at most, more usually weeks. The attack could only be done by a party able to make fresh sarin: captured stocks would be mainly breakdown products by now. Which may be why a new, cheap but effective rocket has been speedily but carefully developed and field tested over the past six weeks or so.

The agent is not necessarily sarin: Soman would have been easier to make and probably to store: the Nazis succeeded in making this a few years before they mastered sarin. As the Indian school meals disaster recently proved, some undiluted commercial pesticides are quite a lot more toxic than some listed chemical weapons and work by a similar mechanism as nerve gas.

The expert you quote clearly hasn’t seen all the material that was on the BBC, let alone that which they couldn’t broadcast because it was too shocking.

Unresolved questions can be used as an excuse for ignoring the bleeding obvious, at times.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 22, 2013 3:08 AM

Fred Plester

To clarify:
if the agent really was sarin, it would have to be fairly freshly made to be as potent as this agent evidently was.
So if sarin, probably government.

If one of the other possibilities, which might be stable in storage for longer, then the list of possible culprits grows, but NOT if the delivery system was, as it appears to have been, rockets fired from HELICOPTERS. The rockets themselves look like the sort of very basic thing made by Russia and Britain during WW2, and might be fabricated by anyone with a reasonably good sheet metal workshop. (They all adhere to pattern, so there are blueprints and proficient fabricators.)

But ONLY government forces are operating helicopters in Syria at the present time.

This follows a huge movement of refugees from Syria into Iraqi Kurdistan, so either there was a whole haystack of straws in the wind, or there was another attack like this a few days ago in a more rural location, which got everybody moving.

There’s been discussion on the Brown Moses bog recently, about a new type of improvised rocket that was clearly able to carry chemical and not just explosive payloads.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 21, 2013 9:11 AM

Fred Plester

Mubarak ran a kleptocracy, which destroyed the Egyptian economy. The army would have defended an economically competent regime, but he never represented that and they knew it. The Muslim Brotherhood, simply do not perceive the economy in the same way as anybody else, and they didn’t attach much importance to fixing what everyone else, including the army, saw as problems. (Not unlike the Taliban, in fact.) There was no way that the army was going to put up with a government that was effectively ignoring the economy. Israel may have shouted encouragement, but I really doubt it had any effect on the army’s decisions. Assad runs a kleptocracy, and has ruined Syria economically. But there’s nobody out there in the opposition who shows any sign of economic competence whatsoever, so it’s a choice of who controls the anarchy amidst an economy at the “Mad Max” level. In Somalia, Yemen and North Western Pakistan, the Islamists have had some success in keeping control of the rubble (and preventing any progress or repair), so it must seem to them that they’ve a fair chance of controlling Syria, provided that it doesn’t ever climb out of the state of collapse. So the real problem, in both Egypt and Syria as well as several other places, is that the Islamists are trying to modify the environment so that it will support Islamists and nobody else. The Brotherhood started burning churches and trying to impose their own view of Islam on what, in Egypt, is a largely moderate Muslim majority. And the Islamists in Syria seem to have actively driven Kurds and Christians in particular over the Iraqi border in recent weeks. But if they reduce the overall level of economic activity to a point where the population can only just narrowly avoid starvation by going to the mosque or the militia compound and meekly accepting what is doled out, then there’s no actual need for overt ethnic or sectarian cleansing. Only compliant families will survive anyway. When the Islamist militias first started in Syria, they were doing what the Muslim Brotherhood has long done in Egypt, and engaged in “charity” work and fed the poor, but in the process made sure that neither the poor nor anybody else would be fed without them. What I think has happened, is not that Israel berated the Egyptian army into action, though I’ve no doubt it was trying to; rather, the Egyptian army and a large part of the civil population, realized for themselves that what was happening would soon make pretty well everyone dependent on handouts at the mosque and therefore put the Brotherhood into eternal and total power. At the same time, the Syrian army was seeing the larger part of the civil population that was either supportive of it, or at least didn’t hate it, being herded over the border into Iraq, concurrent with a widespread and growing dependence of the rest of the civil population on the Islamist militias for food. Both armies suddenly saw themselves on the brink of something irreversible, and the result was atrocity in both cases. The successful strategy in both cases would be to feed civilians, regardless of their perceived allegiance, and try and restore economic activity rather than state control. Egypt and Syria are not separate topics: they’re the same topic. The British army in Helmand learned to measure success by the number of markets and market stalls that were open, rather than by who was sitting on top of which hill. If people can feed themselves without having to submit to anyone’s heavily-loaded charity, all other… Read more »

@Fred: You’re stretching the boundaries of the comment threads by posting post-length comments full of your own personal analysis of a broad array of issues. I certainly don’t mind reasonable length comments on these subjects, when you get into hundreds of words, you’re breaking the spirit of the threads as I see them.

You need to consider publishing your own blog for such long monologues. And you need to post shorter comments. Personally, I think monograph length comments drag the threads down. Most people just don’t want to read them.

Vote Up0Vote Down Reply

August 22, 2013 11:02 PM

Daniel

@ Fred Plester: You raise some interesting arguments; however, I take issue with: “The Brotherhood started burning churches …”

I’m not sure whether in this particular context you mean it figuratively, or if you refer literally to the attacks on Coptic Churches in the aftermath of the August 14 massacre on the pro-democracy camps. Up until recently I casually accepted the allegation that enraged Brotherhood supporters were responsible for these attacks (although I considered it unremarkable and understandable, given the context of August 14, and the Coptic support for Sisi), but lately I’ve noted that such eminent voices as that of Tariq Ramadan have strongly questioned the idea that the Brotherhood was behind the church attacks. I’d just like to raise that for the record.

Your larger point of radical Islamism alienating people seems to have merit, but the notion that the Morsi government was deliberately trying to put a relatively advanced nation of more than 80 million people on the dole, as part of a socio-political strategy, does not strike me as realistic, but rather as an extreme caricature. And the idea, whether you mean it objectively or as percieved by their opponents, of the MB in “total and eternal power” is equally laughable. Furthermore, your characterization of Morsi’s mismanagement of the economy lacks nuance and makes it seem as though the government pursued a kamikaze course. Here is an article by John Wight which discusses the very real obstacles any post-Mubarak government had to contend with, including the role of the IMF:

“By the time Morsi came to power as the nation’s first ever democratically elected president, Egypt had experienced a drastic fall in both foreign investment and tourism revenues, leading to a 60% drop in foreign exchange reserves, a 3% drop in growth, and a rapid devaluation of the Egyptian pound. All this led to mushrooming food prices, ballooning unemployment and a shortage of fuel and cooking gas.”

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

disable

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.